|
Main Menu
Who's Online
There are 119 unlogged users and 0 registered users online.
You can log-in or register for a user account here.
Sponsored Links
|
Monday, February 10, 2003 - 02:40 PM
1729
When Srinivasa Ramanujan, the great Indian mathematician, was ill with tuberculosis in a London hospital, his colleague G. H. Hardy went to visit him. Hardy, trying to initiate onversation, said to Ramanujan, "I came here in taxi-cab number 1729. That number seems dull to me which I hope isn't a bad omen." "Nonsense," replied Ramanujan. "The number isn't dull at all. It's quite interesting. It's the smallest number that can be expressed as the sum of two cubes in two different ways." (Ramanujan recognized that 1729 = 13 + 123 as well as 93 + 103.) Gauss About 100 years ago, a young boy (who grew up to be a great mathematician) by the name of Gauss (pronounced "Gowss") was at school when the class got in trouble for being too loud and misbehaving. Their teacher, looking for something to keep them quiet for a while, told her students that she wanted them to "add up all of the numbers from 1 to 100 and put the answer on her desk." She figured that would keep them busy for an hour or so. About 30 seconds later, the 10-year-old Gauss tossed his slate (small chalkboard) onto the teacher's desk with the answer "5050" written on it and said to her in a snotty tone, "There it is." The teacher, amazed, asked him how he came up with the answer so quickly. So he explained. He noticed that if you add 1 to 100 you get 101, and the same if you add 2 to 99 and so on until you get to 50+51. That's 50 pairs of 101. So he just multiplied 101 by 50 to get 5050. Curious Facts 111,111,111 x 111,111,111 = 12,345,678,987,654,321 1,741,725 = 17 + 77 + 47 + 17 + 77 + 27 + 57 There are 293 ways to make change for a dollar. Divide by 7, 11, 13
Remainder 3
1089
If you like CuriousMath.com, here's a book you'll love: Learn more about Arithmetricks
|
User's Login
Sponsored Links
Other Stories
|
Comments
This trick dosn't always work. Sometimes it comes out to zero. 151. 151-151=0 000+000=0 Any palindromic number should come out to zero.
Something else about 1089, it's also 33 squared... I wonder if it relates?
I suppose what you could do if you really wanted to eliminate palidromic numbers, is do all the steps so that you'll either end-up with a 1089 or a zero. Then you could subtract 33/2, square that number, then multiply by four.
Given abc and assume abc > cba : First stage gives
99a -99c (so you get stuck if a = c)
Which works out as (lots of handwaving which doesn't work if a = c, which is why palindromes don't work)
100(a - c - 1) + 90 + (10 - (a - c))
which is a 3 digit number (We know a>c so that will be precisely 3 digits)
if you reverse and add that add it all up you find that the (a-c) bits cancel out and you get the 1089
100
101
102
110
110
112
...
170 - 017 = 153 + 351 = 504
171 results in 0
172 results in 198
...
211 = 198
212 = 0
213 = 198
...
998 = 198
999 = 0
digitalxero,
it works just fine for the numbers +/- 1 from palindromic numbers, you forgot to invert the number you get from the subtraction. ex: 354:
453-354=99
invert 99 to get 990
990+99=1089
you were adding 99 to the original number, which you aren't supposed to do.
The only time it doesn't equal 1089 is for palindromic numbers, which is why he said "1089 or 0"
Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in